{
  "$type": "site.standard.document",
  "bskyPostRef": {
    "cid": "bafyreiebrkpas5nyqxzusyhkuchetcsbqlkucwpbhr6xuqj4is2uzsg5pa",
    "uri": "at://did:plc:wwyqal4cnqhuwyacdj7rqq3n/app.bsky.feed.post/3metqtjpyilp2"
  },
  "path": "/t/generalizability-vs-transportability-in-trials/28551?page=2#post_40",
  "publishedAt": "2026-02-14T16:07:08.000Z",
  "site": "https://discourse.datamethods.org",
  "textContent": "s_doi:\n\n> This schematic might help. Note I have renamed “transportability“ to “causal applicability“\n\nLooks quite interesting but I don’t follow it completely. To me the missing piece is causal object explication . Eligibility criteria is an opaque term. What is it? This is where the fundamental error of communication between stat and pathophysiology expert occurs.\n\nP(Y | do(T), E) what does that even mean? It could easily be anything and often is.\n\nFor example it could be\n\nE = {C1, C2, C3, …} or E=g(symptoms, thresholds)\n\nWhere: g is the eligibility rule based on non-cause specific clinical findings of thresholds.\n\nPlease provide supportive explanation. Particularly of E.\n\nBtw “Causal applicability” is an excellent term. There is a little expert heuristics in that function, I suspect. IMHO the graph is powerful but without causal explication it the graph is easily misinterpreted.",
  "title": "Generalizability vs. Transportability in Trials"
}